Filed: Apr. 03, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2360 In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, a/k/a Pops, CPO, United States Navy, Retired, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-56-SGW) Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: April 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2360 In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, a/k/a Pops, CPO, United States Navy, Retired, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-56-SGW) Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: April 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. U..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2360 In Re: JOHN PAUL TURNER, a/k/a Pops, CPO, United States Navy, Retired, Plaintiff - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-05-56-SGW) Submitted: March 17, 2006 Decided: April 3, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: John Paul Turner appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the action and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and to consolidate and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See In re: Turner, No. CA-05-56-SGW (W.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2005; Nov. 23, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately set forth in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -
